Anger is mounting

[dryrot]

On 21/03/2021 at 15:43, zugzwang said:

Absolutely. The accusation that Naz Shah is an apologist for grooming gangs was tested in court. She was found not guilty and her accusers (LeaveUK) were obliged to make a grovelling apology, explicitly acknowledging their wrongdoing while paying her damages and the court's costs.

There the matter should be left to rest. Except the tweet is periodically resurrected and used as ammunition against Corbyn/the Labour Party/the Left generally. A potentially costly mistake were Naz Shah or her lawyers to learn of it.

I don't think the tweet was the issue. She "liked" it, you can quote it. You just cant call her an "apologist for grooming gangs" in a leaflet. 

[zugzwang]

8 minutes ago, dryrot said:

I don't think the tweet was the issue. She "liked" it, you can quote it. You just cant call her an "apologist for grooming gangs" in a leaflet. 

It was a genuine accident. You must acknowledge that.

Not to do so implies intent.

 

 

[skinnylattej]

1 hour ago, PeanutButter said:

You mean like this? Police who warned man about 'transphobic' tweet acted unlawfully

Police officers unlawfully interfered with a man’s right to freedom of expression by turning up at his place of work to speak to him about allegedly “transphobic” tweets, the high court has ruled.

Harry Miller, a former police officer who founded the campaign group Fair Cop, said the actions of Humberside police had a “substantial chilling effect” on his right to free speech.

Miller, 54, from Lincolnshire, said an officer told him he had not committed a crime, but that his tweeting was being recorded as a “hate incident”.

Thank you Peanut Butter for a wonderful example.

[dryrot]

25 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

It was a genuine accident. You must acknowledge that.

Not to do so implies intent.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/08/23/mp-shares-tweet-saying-abuse-victims-should-shut-their-mouths-for-good-of-diversity-6872181/

Hey, so it was an accident. Will Ms Shah sue The Metro?"

Ms Shah’s comments come just days after she attacked fellow Labour MP Sarah Champion for speaking out about the Rotherham sex scandal in article. In the letter, published in The Sun, Ms Shah accused Ms Champion’s comments of being ‘blanket, racialised loaded statements’ which stigmatised the Pakistani community. She added that the article was ‘irresponsible’ and set a ‘dangerous precedent’. A spokeswoman for Naz Shah told the paper: ‘This was a genuine accident eight days ago that was rectified within minutes. To suggest otherwise is absolute nonsense'"

[PeanutButter]

7 minutes ago, skinnylattej said:

Thank you Peanut Butter for a wonderful example.

Tip of the iceberg. The left extremists are more authoritarian than the right.

[zugzwang]

2 hours ago, dryrot said:

https://metro.co.uk/2017/08/23/mp-shares-tweet-saying-abuse-victims-should-shut-their-mouths-for-good-of-diversity-6872181/

Hey, so it was an accident. Will Ms Shah sue The Metro?"

Ms Shah’s comments come just days after she attacked fellow Labour MP Sarah Champion for speaking out about the Rotherham sex scandal in article. In the letter, published in The Sun, Ms Shah accused Ms Champion’s comments of being ‘blanket, racialised loaded statements’ which stigmatised the Pakistani community. She added that the article was ‘irresponsible’ and set a ‘dangerous precedent’. A spokeswoman for Naz Shah told the paper: ‘This was a genuine accident eight days ago that was rectified within minutes. To suggest otherwise is absolute nonsense'"

Why is this even an issue? She cleared her name!

End of.

[Ah-so]

15 hours ago, Riedquat said:

People come up with absurd scenarios because exaggeration for effect is a long-established way of talking. And in any case we're already surrounded by what people would've once called absurd but is now seen as normal (don't have to go back all that far and people would find the level of CCTV coverage that plagues this country as an absurd "don't be ridiculous, it'll never happen" idea).

Yes, exaggeration does have a rhetorical impact, but upon examination, actual cases that affect people in practice are either non-existent or vanishingly rare, and usually rejected on appeal. 

So if there are some actual cases, share them, but I'm actually unable to think of any. 

[Ah-so]

15 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

You mean like this? Police who warned man about 'transphobic' tweet acted unlawfully

Police officers unlawfully interfered with a man’s right to freedom of expression by turning up at his place of work to speak to him about allegedly “transphobic” tweets, the high court has ruled.

Harry Miller, a former police officer who founded the campaign group Fair Cop, said the actions of Humberside police had a “substantial chilling effect” on his right to free speech.

Miller, 54, from Lincolnshire, said an officer told him he had not committed a crime, but that his tweeting was being recorded as a “hate incident”.

An excellent example. 

To quote further:

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice after the ruling, Miller called it “a watershed moment for liberty”.

The tweets were lawful and there was not “the slightest risk” that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet, he ruled.

Knowles stressed “the vital importance of free speech”, saying it included “not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative”.

 

The ruling set down a clear line on free speech. If you want to make statements comparable to those that Miller made, the precedent will protect you from prosecution. 

[Ah-so]

14 hours ago, dryrot said:

https://metro.co.uk/2017/08/23/mp-shares-tweet-saying-abuse-victims-should-shut-their-mouths-for-good-of-diversity-6872181/

Hey, so it was an accident. Will Ms Shah sue The Metro?"

Ms Shah’s comments come just days after she attacked fellow Labour MP Sarah Champion for speaking out about the Rotherham sex scandal in article. In the letter, published in The Sun, Ms Shah accused Ms Champion’s comments of being ‘blanket, racialised loaded statements’ which stigmatised the Pakistani community. She added that the article was ‘irresponsible’ and set a ‘dangerous precedent’. A spokeswoman for Naz Shah told the paper: ‘This was a genuine accident eight days ago that was rectified within minutes. To suggest otherwise is absolute nonsense'"

Wasn't it a satirical/sarcastic reply to a satirical article?

[skinnylattej]

On 3/21/2021 at 1:16 PM, A17 said:

The keystone of a modern society is the rule of law, and the government monopoly on enforcing it.

The police and courts lack the resources to enforce the laws, but the real trouble will be when they lack the resources to enforce the laws on those who enforce their own laws.

No, this is the fundamental part of the problem.  Any monopoly will abuse its position to try to maintain its monopoly and law enforcement by the state is no different.  So poor people who band together to protect themselves run the risk of prosecution.  But those in positions of power, e.g. wealthy landowners have armed guards gamekeepers to protect their estates.  The urban rich hide in their gated communities and try to minimise their contacts with those less wealthy than themselves.  And since policing and police priorities are decided by politicians who are wealthy, the ordinary person is stuffed.

I am in favour of law and order, but I do not believe that current system is just, i.e. it fails to distribute the risks and rewards fairly.  The right to live a safe environment should not be based on wealth and position.

[PeanutButter]

1 hour ago, Ah-so said:

The ruling set down a clear line on free speech. If you want to make statements comparable to those that Miller made, the precedent will protect you from prosecution. 

He was lucky he even found out about it. Hate incidents can be reported and recorded on a citizen's file without the citizen ever being informed. Only when you request your full file would you find out.

From Citizen's Advice:
'If you tell the police you think something is hate incident, they should record it as such. It doesn’t matter if the police officer dealing with the matter perceives it differently. You don’t have to show evidence of prejudice or hostility to report a hate incident.'

More than 87,000 ‘non-crime hate incidents’ have been recorded by 27 forces in England and Wales over the past five years, when the national policing body introduced its Hate Crime Operational Guidelines. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/05/police-forces-record-thousands-hate-incidents-year-even-though/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7588769/Transgender-woman-claims-discrimination-snubbed-porn-having-*****.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-36737692

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by PeanutButter

[Confusion of VIs]

On 21/03/2021 at 09:02, Bruce Banner said:

We are now imprisoned on this wretched Brexit island by our ultra authoritarian government under the pretext of keeping us safe.

Is imprisonment the only was to keep us safe? Because I'd rather take my chances and I'm in the 70+ group.

COVID-19: Calls for UK government to allow foreign travel, as scientists warn of dangers from Europe's third wave | UK News | Sky News

 

You are free to leave. It's the coming back they don't like.

[Riedquat]

2 hours ago, Ah-so said:

Yes, exaggeration does have a rhetorical impact, but upon examination, actual cases that affect people in practice are either non-existent or vanishingly rare, and usually rejected on appeal. 

So if there are some actual cases, share them, but I'm actually unable to think of any. 

You also need to consider the wider impact than just what the law actually is, about what society as a whole accepts or rejects and how it treats people.

[iamnumerate]

2 hours ago, Ah-so said:

An excellent example. 

To quote further:

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice after the ruling, Miller called it “a watershed moment for liberty”.

The tweets were lawful and there was not “the slightest risk” that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet, he ruled.

Knowles stressed “the vital importance of free speech”, saying it included “not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative”.

 

The ruling set down a clear line on free speech. If you want to make statements comparable to those that Miller made, the precedent will protect you from prosecution. 

But probably a bad idea unless you are very rich and or have a lot of spare time.

[Riedquat]

2 hours ago, skinnylattej said:

I am in favour of law and order, but I do not believe that current system is just, i.e. it fails to distribute the risks and rewards fairly.  The right to live a safe environment should not be based on wealth and position.

Even without any biases, cronyism, or adjusting laws and policing to suit themselves it still wouldn't be possible to provide maximum safety to everyone. And more choice is always available to the wealthy (that's what wealth is really).

There's also a point where more safety becomes more objectionable to the risks TBH. In general I'd rather not be living in a gated community - throughout most of the country I'd find the additional risks of not being in one preferable to that reaction. Put me somewhere where the risks seemed worth it and I'd want to be well out of it all regardless.

[A17]

3 hours ago, skinnylattej said:

No, this is the fundamental part of the problem.  Any monopoly will abuse its position to try to maintain its monopoly and law enforcement by the state is no different.  So poor people who band together to protect themselves run the risk of prosecution.  But those in positions of power, e.g. wealthy landowners have armed guards gamekeepers to protect their estates.  The urban rich hide in their gated communities and try to minimise their contacts with those less wealthy than themselves.  And since policing and police priorities are decided by politicians who are wealthy, the ordinary person is stuffed.

I am in favour of law and order, but I do not believe that current system is just, i.e. it fails to distribute the risks and rewards fairly.  The right to live a safe environment should not be based on wealth and position.

My point was that if I were attacked in the street randomly, the police would do little and the attacker would have little chance of being prosecuted, and if they did the sentence would be lenient. If somebody broke into my house at night and I attacked them I would be treated much more harshly by the police and courts. The government policy is to keep the 99% of good people cowed by throwing the book at them for any transgressions, at the cost of allowing the 1% of troublemakers to essentially roam free.

[Riedquat]

3 minutes ago, A17 said:

My point was that if I were attacked in the street randomly, the police would do little and the attacker would have little chance of being prosecuted, and if they did the sentence would be lenient. If somebody broke into my house at night and I attacked them I would be treated much more harshly by the police and courts. The government policy is to keep the 99% of good people cowed by throwing the book at them for any transgressions, at the cost of allowing the 1% of troublemakers to essentially roam free.

Would the police do little? I expect the better chance of ending up in trouble in your house would simply be down to it being a lot easier to identify you in that situation.

There have also been some quite high profile cases of intruders getting clobbered and no prosecution (I remember hearing a police spokesman in one case all but saying "thanks for doing everyone a favour").

[scottbeard]

25 minutes ago, A17 said:

My point was that if I were attacked in the street randomly, the police would do little and the attacker would have little chance of being prosecuted, and if they did the sentence would be lenient. 

What rubbish!  That's like Billy Bunter - "I didn't steal those biscuits!  Anyway there were hardly any left and I didn't eat them, and they don't taste very nice anyway."

You basically have no evidence for what you have written, and "lenient" is a subjective matter of opinion.

The fact is - if you were attacked in the street and a policeman saw it, they would break up the fight.  Whether the attacker would be prosecuted would depend upon what evidence there was - did anyone else see them attack you?  What did the policeman see?  And as I've said, no matter what sentence is passed you could say "well I think that's lenient" since that's just opinion.

[skinnylattej]

5 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Would the police do little? I expect the better chance of ending up in trouble in your house would simply be down to it being a lot easier to identify you in that situation.

There have also been some quite high profile cases of intruders getting clobbered and no prosecution (I remember hearing a police spokesman in one case all but saying "thanks for doing everyone a favour").

I seem to remember that Tony martin was sent to prison for shooting a burglar.

[Staffsknot]

3 hours ago, skinnylattej said:

I seem to remember that Tony martin was sent to prison for shooting a burglar.

That was based on the suspicion that far from being woken in the night and heading downstairs to confront an intruder he had sat in a chair waiting for them after several prev break-ins. His lack of shock or remorse one had died for instance and the fact he shot both burglars while they were fleeing.

He also had fired on a vehicle in his orchard previously, had his shotgun licence revoked and claimed he'd 'found' the firearm illegally held.

But The Sun / Mail doesn't care about either of those cases in actual facts so most people believe it was all vindictive CPS.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Staffsknot

[Big Orange]

Another aspect of Tony Martin that is hard to like or rationalise about is his long, deep association with militant Far Right political movements.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Big Orange

[Trampa501]

On 21/03/2021 at 09:02, Bruce Banner said:

We are now imprisoned on this wretched Brexit island by our ultra authoritarian government under the pretext of keeping us safe.

Is imprisonment the only was to keep us safe? Because I'd rather take my chances and I'm in the 70+ group.

COVID-19: Calls for UK government to allow foreign travel, as scientists warn of dangers from Europe's third wave | UK News | Sky News

 

It does feel as though basic freedoms are being whittled away. By the time the majority realise what's happened, it will be too late.

[scottbeard]

On 21/03/2021 at 09:02, Bruce Banner said:

We are now imprisoned on this wretched Brexit island by our ultra authoritarian government under the pretext of keeping us safe.

Is imprisonment the only was to keep us safe? Because I'd rather take my chances and I'm in the 70+ group.

COVID-19: Calls for UK government to allow foreign travel, as scientists warn of dangers from Europe's third wave | UK News | Sky News

 

If it's that wretched why don't you just go and never come back?  There's no ban on emigration, just holidays.

The problem is you might be willing to take the risk, but the people that you put at risk by going overseas and coming back have no say in the matter.  All you're being asked to do is go on holiday in June instead of April/May.

[Big Orange]

11 hours ago, scottbeard said:

The fact is - if you were attacked in the street and a policeman saw it, they would break up the fight.  Whether the attacker would be prosecuted would depend upon what evidence there was - did anyone else see them attack you?  What did the policeman see?  And as I've said, no matter what sentence is passed you could say "well I think that's lenient" since that's just opinion.

Also, though I may be veering into victim blaming, some UK subcultures seem to end up magnets for routine abuse, physical assault, and even attempted murder by the violent social dregs - sex workers come to mind.

And for one reason or another UK Goths end up chav fist magnets, akin to the Mods vs Rockers (I've got a goth acquaintance who was brought up on a hellish West Yorkshire sink estate and the bullying got so bad, he literally had a lifelong enemy still go after him while IN prison and other thugs literally tried to kill him once by driving at him in a car - which instead collided with a wall).

Edited March 24, 2021 by Big Orange

[A17]

14 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Would the police do little? I expect the better chance of ending up in trouble in your house would simply be down to it being a lot easier to identify you in that situation.

 

True - correlation vs causation and all that. But it fails to stop the opinion that the police and courts are ok with letting repeated criminals stay free, but crack down on generally good people who retaliate.